habbushletterfandomcom-20200214-history
45 minute wmds
= basics = wikipedia:September_Dossier#The_45_minute_claim = whered the story come from?? = 'Spy chief regrets '45 minute' Iraq weapons claim', peter fray, sep 17 2003, 'the age' "Sir Richard said the 45 minute claim had "come from an established and reliable source, equating a senior Iraqi military officer, who was certainly in a position to know this information". But the inquiry also heard that senior defence intelligence officials were concerned the 45 minute claim had been "rather strong" as it came from a single source. " http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625031302.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true q: what 'Senior Iraqi Military Officer'??? hutton inquiry testimony of richard dearlove http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans32.htm *first heard about thing on late aug, ... 29 source of intel interview between the lord and Richard Dearlove the Foreign and 19 Commonwealth Office had told the Committee that the 20 intelligence on which the claim was based came from "an 21 established, reliable and long-standing line of 22 reporting". Can you comment on that? 23 A. Well, I can except I would not normally comment in 24 public on the status of an SIS source; but a certain 25 amount of this is already in the public domain. 86 1 Q. I am only seeking comments that are already in the 2 public domain. 3 A. Yes, it did come from an established and reliable source 4 equating a senior Iraqi military officer who was 5 certainly in a position to know this information. ... 20 Q. Did you have any comment about the proposed publication 21 of intelligence material? 22 A. Yes, I certainly did. I discussed with David Manning to 23 what extent it would be possible to put intelligence 24 from my service into the public domain; and I said that 25 I thought it would be possible to put some of this in 87 1 the public domain, but that I would insist on grounds of 2 source protection on having the last word in withholding 3 material from publication, if necessary. 4 Q. And was that agreed? 5 A. Yes, it certainly was. ... 9 Q. Which again deals with those matters, but also deals 10 with the 45 minutes order. It said this at the bottom 11 of the page: 12 "A similar statement appears in the dossier. This 13 is reported as fact whereas the intelligence comes from 14 a single source. In my view the intelligence warrants 15 no stronger a statement than 'intelligence suggests that 16 military planning allows...'" 17 Did you agree with that? First of all, did you see 18 this memorandum at any time before this Inquiry? 19 A. No, I did not. I have to say I am rather bemused by the 20 sentence "this is reported as fact whereas the 21 intelligence comes from a single source". It rather 22 implies that a single source cannot report a fact. 23 I mean, if I can add to that. 24 Q. Yes, of course. 25 A. CX reports as produced by my service are essentially 98 1 single source; and much high quality intelligence which 2 is factual or proved to be factual is single source 3 material. So I do not really understand that comment. questions why did this "established, reliable and long-standing line of reporting", source, say this? what was in it for this person to say such a thing? or did they say something else and it just got ignored?? who was the soucE? was it allawi? = they admit its bogus = 'Blair retracts his '45 minutes' WMD claim', peter fray, oct 14 2004, 'the age' http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/13/1097607294014.html?from=storylhs